Subject: [spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-previdi-spring-proble m-statement-01.txt - section 5.1.2

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:46:23 -0700

Stefano,

Section 5.1.2 contains plenty of material that is not use cases.

E.g., section 5.1.2.1 describes capacity planning process, but
not a particular use case. Such description is outside the scope
of the use case document.

E.g., section 5.1.2.2.1 goes into comparison between the scheme
where traffic engineering is done by distributed CSPF and the scheme
where it is done by using centralized computation for dynamically
setting/adjusting IGP metrics based on the traffic load and for
computing paths for explicitly routed tunnels. Such comparison is
outside the scope of the use case document.

Yakov.

---

From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:46:24 +0000

Hi Yakov,

indeed. It's part of a problem statement that describes how 
networks are deployed today and how these network may benefit
from a SR solution.

So, to me, it looks the right place for this description to be.

s.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:27:50 -0700

Stefano,

> networks are deployed today and how these network may benefit

As I mentioned in my original e-mail, section 5.1.2.2.1 presents a
comparison between an approach where traffic engineering is done
by distributed CSPF and an approach where it is done by using
centralized computation for dynamically setting/adjusting IGP metrics
based on the traffic load and for computing paths for explicitly
routed tunnels. Such comparison is outside the scope of the SPRING
use case document, as dynamic IGP metric adjustment based on the
traffic load, and the ability to reduce the number of explicitly
routed tunnels are due to the centralized path computation, and are
independent of SR.

Yakov.

> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:36:41 +0000

Hi Yakov,

> routed tunnels are due to the centralized path computation, and are

If I take section 5.1, I see the following structure:

  5.1.  Examples of Traffic Engineering Use Cases  . . . . . . . .  7
  5.1.1.  Traffic Engineering without Bandwidth Admission
            Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
  5.1.2.  Traffic Engineering with Bandwidth Admission
            Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

As the title of 5.1 says, it's an example on how TE is currently 
deployed so to frame the context into which SR has to operate.

s.